Back Stay Effect of Diaphragm in Tall Building: April 2020

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/340376293
Back stay Effect of Diaphragm in Tall Building
Article · April 2020

DOI: 10.35940/ijitee.C8621.019320
CITATIONS READS
0 214
2 authors, including:
Jairaj Channshetty
Nitte Meenakshi Institute of Technology
9 PUBLICATIONS 10 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Strength of BC soil Reinforced with Natural Fiber and Fiber Content View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Jairaj Channshetty on 02 April 2020.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

International Journal of Innovative Technology and Exploring Engineering (IJITEE)
ISSN: 2278-3075, Volume-9 Issue-3, January 2020
Backstay Effect of Diaphragm in Tall Building

Ankan Kumar Nandi, Jairaj C
Abstract: - Seismic analysis of structural systems with floor A diaphragm may be considered rigid when its midpoint
diaphragms has been a requisite in the recent past. The duty of a displacement, under lateral load, is less than twice the average
structural engineer is to be prudent about the behavior of every displacements at its ends. Flexible diaphragms resist lateral
structural system adopted. Amongst the structural systems that are forces depending on the tributary area, irrespective of the
adopted world over, diaphragm with rigid and semi-rigid floor
plate are adopted widely in the analysis. This research focuses on
flexibility of the members that they are transferring force to. A
the backstay effect i.e. podium structural interaction with the diaphragm is considered flexible, when the midpoint
tower area and consideration of retaining wall as increment of displacement, under lateral load, exceeds twice the average
lateral stiffness as specified in latest tall building code displacement of the end supports.
IS6700:2016 for low and high rise structures. In the current study R.Khajehdehi et. al (2018) the main objective is flexible
models were prepared with low to high rise storeys with rigid and floor diaphragm along with opening. They had done different
flexible diaphragms considering backstay diaphragm placing models for their research work to analyze the behaviour of
tower at center and corner. The models were subjected to seismic floors which are solid as well as with floor openings up to
forces; response spectrum along with the combination of the
25%. Parameters studied are base shear, displacement,
gravity loads. The structural responses like natural periods, base
shear, displacement and inter storey drift were also studied.
deflection. It is concluded that opening in the floor with
increased flexibility diaphragm results in breaking of floor
Keywords : Podium tower, Backstay effects, Rigid and panels, load carrying capacity is reduced floors will fail.
Semi-rigid diaphragm. Seismic Analysis. Mehair Yacoubian et al. (2017), worked on podium
interference and finite element 3D analysis using etabs. The
I. INTRODUCTION purpose of the 3D analysis was to find the horizontal response
on the structure. In this analysis they have researched on three
One of the least understood aspects of modelling building
models Tower without podium interference, Tower with
structures is dealing with at and below-grade components.
podium interference placed at the center of plot area. Tower
This includes soil structure interaction, but also the question
placed at one corner of the plot area. Analyzed the structure
of which below-grade structural elements should be included
using static analysis. Parameters studied are difference of
in a lateral model and what is an accurate representation of the
displacement between walls, story drift and shear force, wall
base conditions. The focus of this research is what is most
bending moment and base shear. It can be known that the
commonly referred to as the backstay effect. Traditionally,
conditions which are not in favour of the podium and the
lateral systems have been viewed as simple cantilever beams
tower.Mohammad et al., (2013) work on the behavior of the
fixed at the base. While this analogy is reasonable for the
tall structure which have soft and hard diaphragm. In this
above-grade structure, a more accurate analogy would also
paper they mainly examined concrete is fully hardened, loss in
include the effects of the below-grade structure, which
concrete (1/3). The analysis was done by using equivalent
behaves like a back span to the cantilever. In this analogy, the
static and dynamic method. Parameter studied displacement,
lateral system is viewed as a beam overhanging one support,
modal time period, time history. It can be known that the
where that support is created by the at-grade diaphragm and
structure with flexible diaphragm have large displacement,
foundation walls. The backstay effect is not limited to
momentum while for rigid structure time period is larger.
restraint at the grade level. Backstay effects are also seen at
Dhiman Basu and Sudhir. K. Jain (2004) worked on both
setbacks with changes to the lateral system, the most common
flexible and rigid floors diaphragm along with the centre of
example being lower level podiums. They are often very large
rigidity of individual floors. The analysis was done by using
in plan and introduce new lateral elements, and are therefore
static method. Parameters are static, accidental eccentricities,
significantly stiffer than the set-back structure above.
response due to torsion, accidental torsion and shear force.
Backstay effects are also impacted by multiple basement
From this paper it can be known that the both flexible and
levels. For simplicity of explanation, this article will focus on
rigid diaphragm can be used depending on structure’s
the most common example which is the effect of the ground
floor diaphragm in contributing to backstay effects. The position and effect of torsion.
concepts can be extended to all conditions where backstay
effects occur. effectively larger beam section below grade. A II. OBJECTIVE
rigid diaphragm transfer load to frames or shear walls The objective of present study is comparison of diaphragm
depending on their flexibility and their location in the effect for rigid and semi rigid flexibility effect of the floor slab
structure. of frame building with shear wall at the core, comparison of
diaphragm effect with the effect of backstay for rigid and semi
rigid flexibility effect of the floor slab framed building with
shear wall at the core, comparative study of rigid and flexible
diaphragms for twenty and fourty stories framed building, to
Revised Manuscript Received on January 5, 2020 study of parameters like time period, base shear, storey
Ankan Kumar Nandi, PG Student Nitte Meenakshi Institute of
Technology Bengaluru, India-560064. displacement and storey drifts,
Jairaj C, Assistant Professor Nitte Meenakshi Institute of Technology in this study slabs are
Bengaluru, India-560064
Published By:
Retrieval Number: C8621019320/2020©BEIESP Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering
DOI: 10.35940/ijitee.C8621.019320 1578 & Sciences Publication
considered as rigid and semi rigid floor systems.  M 20.1 Rigid diaphragm with bare frame.
 M 20.2 Rigid diaphragm with backstay tower at
III. METHODS center.
 M20.3 Rigid diaphragm with backstay and retaining
A. Description of Specimen
wall tower at centre.
RC Structure with, twenty and fourty storey are taken into
 M 20.4 Rigid diaphragm with backstay tower at
consideration. The RC frames are designed as per Bureau of
corner.
Indian Standards codes, IS 456-2000, “Plain and Reinforced
Concrete-code of practice”, IS 1893-2002 (Part1), “Criteria
wall tower at corner.
for earthquake resistant design of structures”.  M 20.6 Semi-rigid diaphragm with bare frame.
B. Analysis Type  M 20.7 Semi-rigid diaphragm with tower at center.
Etabs, finite element based software used for analysis and  M 20.8 Semi-rigid diaphragm backstay and retaining
design of structures. Analysis was done by using etabs 2016. wall tower at corner.
 M 20.9 Semi-rigid diaphragm with backstay tower at
C. Design corner.
The RC frames comprises of columns, beams and slabs.  M 21 Semi-rigid diaphragm with backstay and
concrete frame. Table 1 represents the various loads and retaining wall tower at corner.
earthquake factors assigned for the frames as per IS codes. Two structures such as bare frame with diaphragms, backstay
with diaphragm and retaining wall tower at corner of area,
Table 1: Applied Loads and Seismic-Factors their floor plan and three dimensional view shown bellow in
Applied fig 1and 2.
Type of
Members Loads and Codes
Load
Factors
Unit weight of
25 kN/m3 1S
concrete
Dead load 875:1987
Floor finish 1.5kN/m3
Part-I
Roof finish 3.0kN/m3
1S
Imposed
Slabs 2.0kN/m2 875:1987
Load
Part-II
Zone factors 0.36
Importance
1.5
factor IS
Earthquake Fig 1: Plan and 3D view of twenty storey bare frame
Response 1893:200
Load 5
reduction factor 2 Part-I diaphragm.
Soil condition Medium
Damping 5%
D. Details of RC Frame
Different types concrete used for the analysis of the two type
of structures like twenty and fourty storey with type of
concrete M30, M 35, M40, M50 and Tor steel such as Fe 415
and Fe500 are used for reinforcement. Dimensions of
external and internal beams are ( 300 x 600 , 250 x 600) mm
.Dimensions for columns for stories are from plinth to ten
,eleventh to twenty, twenty-first to thirtieth, thirty-first to
fortieth floors are (1050 x 1050, 900x 900, 750x750, Fig 2: Plan and 3D view of twenty storey backstay with
650x650) mm with change in grade of concrete M50, retaining wall diaphragm tower at corner.
M40,M35,M30 gradually.
A. Fourty Storey
E. Parametric Studies In this storey ten different types of models were done
Following seismic analysis of three dimensional buildings discussed below:
of twenty and fourty storey with shear wall at center done.  M 40.1 Rigid diaphragm with bare frame.
Building frames with fixed base without considering sub  M 40.2 Rigid diaphragm with backstay tower at
soil. For each stories discussed above there are ten center.
different types of models were done in this thesis to  M40.3 Rigid diaphragm with backstay and retaining
investigate the seismic behavior of each buildings. Here, wall tower at centre.
M20.1, and M40.1 etc. indicates model with no. of  M 40.4 Rigid diaphragm with backstay tower at
individual building for twenty and fourty storey. corner.
F. Twenty Storey wall tower at corner.
In this storey ten different types of models were done  M 40.6 Semi-rigid
discussed below: diaphragm with bare
frame.
Published By:
 M 40.7 Semi-rigid diaphragm with tower at center. A graph is prepared bellow to understand the each time period
 M 40.8 Semi-rigid diaphragm backstay and retaining of building when subjected to earth quake. From graph it is
wall tower at corner. observed that first mode time period is more than other two
 M 40.9 Semi-rigid diaphragm with backstay tower at modes.(Refer fig 6).
corner.
 M41 Semi-rigid diaphragm with backstay and
retaining wall tower at corner.
Two structures such as bare frame with diaphragms, backstay
with diaphragm and retaining wall tower at corner of area,
their floor plan and three dimensional view shown bellow in
fig 3and 4
Fig 6: Comparison of Time Period for Fourty Storey

Semi-rigid Diaphragm
The model with bare frame for fourty storey has
maximum time period, when compared to models with effect
of backstay diaphragms. Bare Frame is more flexible when
compared to other models. If the structure is flexible time
Fig 3: Plan and 3D view of fourty storey bare frame period is more. If the structure is stiffer there will be reduced
diaphragm. time period. It is seen that when the diaphragm effect is
considered with the tower accounting back stay time period is
less. Also, with the consideration of retaining wall of the
structure there will be reduced time period which is increasing
the lateral stiffness of the structure. As observed in the tables
time period is directly proportional to stiffness of the
structure. Hence increase in stiffness there will be reduced
time period for the structure with rigid diaphragm (Refer fig
5). When the structure with flexible diaphragm is considered
in the analysis there will be marginal increase in the time
period. Hence resulting in increased time period .Structure
with flexible diaphragm is flexible and vurnable to earth
quake as when compared to rigid diaphragms (Refer fig 6). It
is seen that model without effect of back stay diaphragm has
Fig 4: Plan and 3D view of fourty storey backstay with translation (x) in 1st mode, torsion is in 2nd mode and
retaining wall diaphragm tower at center. translation (y) is in 3rd mode which is non-compliant as per
codal requirement. It is seen that with the effect of backstay
diaphragm the modes of oscillation were regular namely
IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS translation in both principal directions. Hence it can be also
a) Natural Time Period observed that analysis can be compliant with the introduction
A graph is prepared bellow to understand the each time period of back stay diaphragm effect. Hence added stiffness to the
of building when subjected to earth quake. From graph it is structure as compared to bare frame performed better. Further
observed that first mode time period is more than other two when the effect of retaining wall with the effect of backstay
modes. (Refer fig 5). diaphragm is considered alteration in the stiffness of the
structure resulting disparior of the IS code. The analysis
model can be altered with increasing stiffness by adding shear
wall at podium area which will improve the results by
implementing torsion in the 1st two modes. Further when the
tower placed at corner the results perform better than the
model tower placed at the center.
Analysis results of twenty storey rigid diaphragm
structure is shown figure bellow. It is seen from graph that the
each time period of building when subjected to earth
quake,that first mode time period is more than other two
modes. (Refer fig 7).
Fig 5: Comparison of Time Period for Fourty Storey

Rigid Diaphragm
Published By:
Fig 7: Comparison of Time Period for Twenty Storey Fig 9: Comparison of Base shear Fourty Storey Rigid
Rigid Diaphragm Diaphragm
Analysis results of twenty storey semi-rigid diaphragm Base shear for semi-rigid models in discussed here. Similar
structure is shown figure bellow. It is seen from graph that the patterns are seen with decrease in base for Spec X and Spec Y,
each time period of building when subjected to earth quake, because of considering ground parameters. We can see base
that first mode time period is more than other two shear is more for models for static case but for dynamic case
modes.(Refer fig 8). models have similar base shear as we can watch from graph.
(Refer fig 10)
Fig 8: Comparison of Time Period for Twenty Storey

Fig 10: Comparison of Base shear Fourty Storey
It is observed that models with bare frame have 1st, 3rd mode
is in translation and 2nd mode is in torsion which is not
relevant to code. With the consideration of backstay From figure 9 for rigid diaphragm of fourty storey
diaphragm the oscillation of directions of 1st two modes are in structure without back stay diaphragm base shear was found
translation while the other is in torsion which is safe for to be 17139 kN in EQX direction and 15281 kN in EQY
structure and follow the IS code. With retaining wall and back direction for static analysis. The base shear in response
stay diaphragm there are change is oscillation which is not as spectrum dynamics analysis was almost 3.5 to 4 times lesser
per codal requirement. Stiffness can be added by placing than static forces because of ground motion parameters given
shear wall all round thus eliminate torsion in 1st two modes. in IS Codes. There was a marginal difference in the forces
base shear when semi-rigid diaphragm was assigned as
b) Base Shear in Both Static and Dynamic Analysis. observed in figure 10. When effect of back stay diaphragm
was considered there was increase in forces in base shear
It is the expected maximum lateral force induced at the base of values, this is because when there is increase in mass there
the structure during earth quake shaking. For fourty storey will be proportional increase on base shear for tower at center.
rigid diaphragm base shear for each model in this storey is When back stay diaphragm for tower placed at corner of plot
shown in figure. We can notice base shear for individual their slight decrease in base shear as the tower is placed
building and how they behave in static and dynamic case with unsymmetrically at corner when compared to tower placed at
rigid diaphragms. From the graph we can observe variation in center.
base shear. For all models in EQX and EQY directions When twenty storey with rigid diaphragm is considered
capacity of taking base is more. But for dynamic base shear is decrease in height base shear is notice to be less in both cases
less because of considering ground parameters. (Refer fig 9) . In dynamic cases it is always lesser than static case due to
ground motion parameters given in IS code. For models in
static with tower at center and bare frame base shear capacity
taking is more in x and y
direction but for models with
corner base shear is less. But for
Published By:
model 20.2 base shear capacities is more in y direction in 13)

dynamic. Refer fig 11
Fig 13: Comparison of Lateral Displacement Fourty

Fig 11: Comparison of Base shear Twenty Storey
Storey Rrigid Diaphragm
Rigid Diaphragm
When twenty storey with semi-rigid diaphragm is considered
decrease in height base shear is notice to be less in both cases For dynamic analysis displacement for scaled factor of base
. In dynamic cases it is always lesser than static case due to shear for bare frame hi/250 theoretical limit was calculated to
be 512 mm. It was found that bare frame displacement was
ground motion parameters given in IS code. For models in
found to be within the limits for dynamic analysis in
static with tower at center and bare frame base shear capacity
semi-rigid. The top storey displacements for rigid decreased
taking is more but for models with corner base shear is less in
about 10 to 15 % when back stay diaphragm effect was
x and y direction..(Refer fig 12)
considered. This is because increase in stiffness and mass due
to backstay diaphragm From graph we can observed for spec
x direction average displacement is more as compared to spec
y directions but with in limit 512 mm. In corner model in spec
x direction displacement very less as compared to other
models. For spec y there is slight variation in terrace
displacement. (Refer fig 14)
Fig 12: Comparison of Base shear Twenty Storey

Base shear for twenty storey similar patterns were observed in

twenty storey structure whereas analytical models with back
stay diaphragm placed at corner observed nearly 50%
reduction in base shear when compared to the models placed Fig 14: Comparison of Lateral Displacement Fourty
at center as seen in figure 11 and 12. Storey Semi-rigid Diaphragm
The patterns were observed in twenty storey structure is that
d) Lateral Displacement with change in building height and reduced displacement
As per tall building code clause 5.4 for lateral drift for values with limits for rigid. Bare frame displacement is more
factored earth quake load factored combination the drift is as compared to other buildings. But for model with retaining
limited to hi / 250.For dynamic analysis displacement for wall back stay average terrace displacement is more in spec y
scaled factor of base shear for bare frame hi/250 theoretical direction as compared to backstay models. But in spec y
limit was calculated to be 512 mm. It was found that bare direction lateral displacement is more than y direction but
frame displacement was found to be within the limits for within the calculated limit (Refer fig 15)
dynamic analysis. The top storey displacements for rigid
decreased about 10 to 15 % when back stay diaphragm effect
was considered. This is because increase in stiffness and mass
due to backstay diaphragm. As seen the graph for average
displacement at terrace for model 40.3 is more with the
consideration of retaining wall and backstay with rigid
diaphragm for spec y direction for rigid diaphragm. (Refer fig
Published By:
Fig 15: Comparison of Lateral Displacement Twenty

Storey Rrigid Diaphragm
The patterns were observed in twenty storey structure is that Fig 17: Comparison of Inter-storey Drift in EQX
with change in building height and reduced displacement Direction Fourty Storey Rigid Diaphragm
values with limits. Bare frame displacement is more as
compared to other buildings. Corner models have less Drift limit in EQY direction were within the limits following
displacement due to stiffness as shown in fig 16 for semi rigid proper mode shape curve from fig 18
diaphragm .
Fig 18: Comparison of Inter-storey Drift in EQY

Fig 16: Comparison of Lateral Displacement Twenty Direction Fourty Storey Rigid Diaphragm
Storey Semi-rrigid Diaphragm
For spec x directions for dynamic analysis drift for the storey
e) Inter-story Drift is very less within the limits and safe for all models in figure
Inter storey drift = 0.004 x H (Floor height 3200 mm). 19
Storey drift limitation as per IS 1893-2016 clause 7.11.1 shall
not exceed 0.004 times the storey height under the action of
design base shear Vb. As per IS 16700- 2017 the storey tall
building code the drift is taken as limited as hi/400. Drift limit
0.004 x 3200 = 12.8 mm.
It is seen that bare frame analytical model had the storey drift
within the limit following model analysis shape in EQX
direction for rigid diaphragm. Further when the back-stay
diaphragm effect was considered there was increased in
inter-story drift limit in the form 19-33 storey indicating
higher second order moment in structure bringing in notice to
the engineer to counter act or to take remedial measure to
keep the structure safe with in permissible limit. Similar
trends were observed on all the remaining models where drift
limit exceeds in EQX direction (limit exceeds 12.8 mm). It Fig 19: Comparison of Inter-storey Drift in Spec X
also indicates that stiffness is to be increased in X direction of Direction Fourty Storey Rigid Diaphragm
rigid diaphragm building direction. ( Refer fig 17)
Published By:
For spec y directions i.e. for dynamic analysis drift for the
storey is very less and safe for all models in fig 20
Fig 22: Comparison of Inter-storey Drift in EQY

Direction Fourty Storey Semi-rigid Diaphragm
For spec x directions i.e. for dynamic analysis drift for the
storey is very less and safe for all models in fig 23
Fig 20: Comparison of Inter-storey Drift in Spec Y
Direction Fourty Storey Rigid Diaphragm
It is observed that bare frame analytical model had the storey

drift within the limit following model analysis shape in EQX
direction for semi-rigid diaphragm. Further when the
back-stay diaphragm effect was considered there was
increased in inter-story drift limit in the form 19-33 storey
indicating higher second order moment in structure bringing
in notice to the engineer to counter act or to take remedial
measure to keep the structure safe with in permissible limit.
Similar trends were observed on all the remaining models
where drift limit exceeds in EQX direction (limit exceeds 12.8
mm). It also indicates that stiffness is to be increased in X
direction of semi-rigid diaphragm building direction.( Refer
fig 21)
Fig 23: Comparison of Inter-storey Drift in Spec X
For spec y directions for dynamic analysis drift for the storey
is very less and safe for all models in graph. (Refer fig 24)
Fig 21: Comparison of Inter-storey Drift in EQX

From the graph we can see the models with and without
podium interference drift limit is within proper mode shape Fig 24:Comparison of Inter-storey Drift Spec Y Direction
curve figure 22 Fourty Storey Semi-rigid Diaphragm
Published By:
Models with bare frame and placed at center with back stay storey drift because low storey height and stiffness of
diaphragm effect had all the drift within the limit making the retaining wall accounted (Refer fig 27).
analytical model code compliant as observed from table for
rigid diaphragm. Models placed at corner there was reduced
storey drift because low storey height and stiffness of
retaining wall accounted in figure 25 for twenty storey rigid
diaphragm.
Fig 27 Comparison of Inter-storey Drift in Spec X

Direction Twenty Storey Rigid Diaphragm
Similar patterns were observed in spec y directions like spec x
as gien in fig 28
Fig 25 Comparison of Inter-storey Drift in EQX Direction
Twenty Storey Rigid Diaphragm
Models with bare frame and placed at center with back stay
diaphragm effect had all the drift within the limit making the
storey drift because low storey height and stiffness of
retaining wall accounted in figure26
Fig 28 Comparison of Inter-storey Drift in Spec Y

Direction Twenty Storey Rigid Diaphragm
semi- rigid diaphragm. Models placed at corner there was
reduced storey drift because low storey height and stiffness of
retaining wall accounted in fig 29
Fig 26 Comparison of Inter-storey Drift in EQY Direction
Twenty Storey Rigid Diaphragm
Published By:
Fig 29 Comparison of Inter-storey Drift in EQX Direction

Twenty Storey Semi-rigid Diaphragm Fig 32 Comparison of Inter-storey Drift in Spec Y
Direction Twenty Storey Semi-rigid Diaphragm
Similar patterns were observed in EQY directions like EQX
as gien in fig 30 V. CONCLUSION
Two types of stories like twenty story and fourty storey
were analysed to know their seismic behaviour and parameter
like time period, base shear, lateral displacement and
inter-storey drift.
1) A tall building structure free standing had maximum
time period which indicates the building is flexible in nature.
Consideration of backstay effect in tall storey structure
increases lateral stiffness resulting in reduced time period.
With consideration of backstay diaphragm the structure can
be made has an code compliant with respect to direction.
2) The effect of backstay diaphragm results in increased
mass therefore resulting in proportional increase in base
shear. For low rise structure the stiffness of building the
benefit of backstay diaphragm were not much when
compared to high structure.
3) There was 35% of reduction in displacement with
Fig 30 Comparison of Inter-storey Drift in EQY Direction
consideration of backstay effect with backstay diaphragm
Twenty Storey Semi-rigid Diaphragm
effect in twenty and fourty stories when compared to bare
Similar patterns were observed in Spec x directions as shown frame
in fig 31 4) Displacement gradually reduces more with effect of
backstay and retaining wall.
5) Bare frame tall building model had more second order
moment which is a result of drift with exceeds permissible
drift.
6) The effect of backstay diaphragm had the drift with in
permissible limit (0.004 times floor height).
7) Rigid diaphragm is stiffer than flexible diaphragm
structure.
8) Structure behaved in favorable results when tower
was placed at the centre of the plot area when compared to
corner tower.
REFERENCES
1. R. Khajehdehi, N. Panahshahi and R. Ghaffari “In-Plane Flexibility of
Reinforced Concrete Floor Diaphragm with Openings” Structure
Congress 2018.
Fig 31 Comparison of Inter-storey Drift in Spec X
Direction Twenty Storey Semi-rigid Diaphragm 2. Mehair Yacoubian, Nelson Lam, Elisa Lumantarna and John L. Wilson
“Analytical modelling of podium interference on tower walls in
buildings”, Australian Journal of Structural Engineering, 2017 ISSN:
Similar patterns were observed in Spec y directions as shown 1328-7982.
in fig 32
Published By:
3. Mohammad T Bhuiyan and Roberto T Leon “Effect of Diaphragm

Flexibility on Tall Building Responses”, Structure Congress 2013
4. Dhiman Basu and Sudhir K. Jain “Seismic Analysis of Asymmetric
Buildings with Flexible Floor Diaphragm”. Journals of Structural
Engineering, Vol 130 No 8 August 2004, ISSN 0733-9445..
AUTHORS PROFILE
Ankan Kumar Nandi completed UG (Civil

Engineering) and pursuing PG (Structural
Engineering) in Nitte Meenakshi Institute of
Technology, Bengaluru, Karnataka - 560064
Dr.Jairaj C Assistatn Professor Nitte

Meenkahsi institute of technology Yelahanka
Bengaluru, has published many national and
international journal papers and conference
papers.
Published By:
View publication stats

Back Stay Effect of Diaphragm in Tall Building: April 2020

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Back Stay Effect of Diaphragm in Tall Building: April 2020

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Back stay Effect of Diaphragm in Tall Building

Article · April 2020

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Backstay Effect of Diaphragm in Tall Building

Fig 6: Comparison of Time Period for Fourty Storey

Fig 5: Comparison of Time Period for Fourty Storey

Fig 8: Comparison of Time Period for Twenty Storey

model 20.2 base shear capacities is more in y direction in 13)

Fig 13: Comparison of Lateral Displacement Fourty

Fig 12: Comparison of Base shear Twenty Storey

Base shear for twenty storey similar patterns were observed in

Fig 15: Comparison of Lateral Displacement Twenty

Fig 18: Comparison of Inter-storey Drift in EQY

Fig 22: Comparison of Inter-storey Drift in EQY

It is observed that bare frame analytical model had the storey

Fig 21: Comparison of Inter-storey Drift in EQX

Fig 27 Comparison of Inter-storey Drift in Spec X

Fig 28 Comparison of Inter-storey Drift in Spec Y

Fig 29 Comparison of Inter-storey Drift in EQX Direction

3. Mohammad T Bhuiyan and Roberto T Leon “Effect of Diaphragm

Ankan Kumar Nandi completed UG (Civil

Dr.Jairaj C Assistatn Professor Nitte

You might also like